In an opinion issued Thursday, U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez said Josh Marquis and his chief deputy district attorney, Ronald Brown, are entitled to absolute immunity for the prosecutorial decisions they make – including not calling Det. Steven Barnett as a witness and not prosecuting cases that he has investigated. A prosecutor’s evaluation of a witness is entitled to protection from lawsuits, Hernandez said, citing a federal appellate decision, “even if that judgment is harsh, unfair or clouded by personal animus.”

The lawsuit stems from an exchange of opinion pieces both Marquis and Barnett had written for the Daily Astorian in 2012.

Marquis wrote a column that was published in March 2012 in which he endorsed the sheriff at the time, who was running for re-election against Barnett. About seven weeks later, Barnett wrote his own piece in the newspaper critical of Marquis.

According to court filings, Marquis emailed the Seaside Police Department the same day, stating that he had had concerns before about Barnett and that he objected to the accusation that Marquis was “untruthful.” A month later, Marquis sent a letter to the police department stating that his office would no longer take cases investigated by Barnett and that they were concerned about his credibility as a witness.

The move, Barnett contended in his lawsuit, was to retaliate against him and violated his free-speech and due-process rights. The prosecutors’ refusal to work with him curtailed his work assignments, and overtime opportunities and “hampered his future economic potential,” his attorney, Sean Riddell, wrote in filings.

In a previous court filing, Marquis denied Barnett’s allegations of retaliation, but Hernandez’s opinion focused solely on whether Barnett could sue for the decisions Marquis made, regardless of his alleged intent.

He found that Marquis’ actions were protected because the decisions related to the judicial process, not to administrative issues. That includes the district attorney’s telling Seaside Police with whom they are able to work.

“The decision of whether to work with a law enforcement officer falls squarely within the

protection of absolute immunity,” Hernandez wrote. “Such a decision involves the discretion of how to prosecute a case, including what information to use and where to get that information. The exercise of such discretion is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity.”

Riddell, Barnett's lawyer, said they believe the matter has not been addressed in the district of Oregon previously and plan to appeal the decision.

In a phone interview Monday, Barnett said he was disappointed, but "the ruling is what the ruling is."

"He didn't say they were right for what they did," Barnett said, adding that he still is "looking for my day in court. Once I get that, the truth is going to come out."

Marquis on Monday said he was pleased with the order, maintaining that his decision to not work with Barnett stemmed from concerns over his credibility, not retaliation.

He also brushed aside Barnett's comments. "He had his day in court," Marquis said, adding that the result was the judge's dismissal of the claims.

"As the district attorney entering into my 21st year in office, I welcome the fact that these allegations are behind us and we can get on with the business of the hundreds of cases prosecuted every year by my staff," he said.